Dismissed¶20

The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corp., Akola Division v. Ajabrao Vishram Tayade

Bombay HC1 Jul 2025WP/6986/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recovery from retirement dues (leave encashment/gratuity) after superannuation; show cause notice absent; notice of change under Section 9A, Industrial Disputes Act 1947 mandatory where service conditions adversely affected; principles of natural justice; MRTU & PULP Act 1971 complaint (ULP) No.104/2016; Industrial Court Akola order upheld; MSRTC conductor; refund Rs.87,449/- with 10% interest; writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs; Nagpur Bench; R.M. Joshi, J.; neutral citation 2025:BHC-NAG:6203.

What did the court decide?

None; the petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. ¶20

The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corp., Akola Division Vs Ajabrao Vishram Tayade — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the recovery of Rs.87,449/- from the retirement dues (leave encashment and gratuity) of the respondent, a superannuated M.S.R.T.C. conductor, without any show cause notice and without the notice of change mandated by Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was in contravention of the principles of natural justice.

¶19

Court's answer

On the facts appearing from the record, no show cause notice was issued to the respondent before deducting the amount due and payable to him.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Since the respondent's service conditions were adversely affected by the recovery, notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act was mandatory and had to be given beforehand.

¶19

Key takeaways

The Industrial Court rightly held that the recovery of the amount by the petitioner from the dues payable to the respondent was in contravention of the principles of natural justice.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

M.S.R.T.C. (Divisional Collector, Akola) v. Ajabrao Vishram Tayade, Writ Petition No.6986 of 2024 (High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench; R.M. Joshi, J.; decided 1 July 2025): The writ petition challenged the Industrial Court, Akola order in Complaint (ULP) No.104/2016 under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, which directed the Corporation to refund Rs.87,449/- recovered from a superannuated conductor's leave encashment and gratuity dues, with interest at 10% per annum. The Corporation argued that notice issued on 30/06/2015, the date of superannuation, sufficed; the employee contended no notice of change under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was issued and the communication was merely an intimation of a decision already taken. HOLDING: the record showed no show cause notice preceded the deduction; as the service conditions were adversely affected, Section 9A notice was mandatory; the recovery therefore contravened principles of natural justice, and the Industrial Court rightly said so. Petition dismissed, no order as to costs.

¶1

1/2

¶2

2025:BHC-NAG:6203

¶3

38.wp.6986.24

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶5

Writ Petition No.6986 of 2024

¶6

The Divisional Collector, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Akola

¶7

vs.

¶8

Shri Ajabrao Vishram Tayade

¶9

Office notes, Office Memoranda of

¶10

Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶11

Mr. P.S. Gawai, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. P.U. Kavishwar, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶12

CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 1 st JULY, 2025.

¶13

This petition takes an exception to the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court, Akola in Complaint (ULP) No.104/2016 thereby the complaint filed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “Act” for short) came to be allowed in favour of the complainant-employee. By this order, the respondent was directed to refund a sum of Rs.87,449/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum.

¶14

There is no dispute about the fact that the respondent was an employee of the M.S.R.T.C. He worked as a Conductor w.e.f. 01/07/1980 and was superannuated on 30/06/2015. On 20/09/2016, he received a letter from the petitioner stating that an amount of Rs.87,449/- has been recovered from the amount payable to him towards leave encashment and gratuity. The action of the petitioner came to be challenged by filing complaint under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The Industrial Court recorded the findings that the principles of natural justice are not followed before taking the said decision of recovery of the amount.

¶15

38.wp.6986.24

¶16

2/2

¶17

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that before actual recovery of the amount, notice was given to the respondent on 30/06/2015. It is his contention that on the date of superannuation, this notice was issued as such it cannot be said that the recovery is sought to be done after the retirement of the respondent. It is his submission that as the recovery is made subsequently, this was a sufficient notice for the respondent.

¶18

The learned Counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and order by contending that notice of change as contemplated by Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has not been issued before adversely affecting the conditions of service of the respondent. It is his submission that the communication dated 30/06/2015 cannot be considered as ‘show cause notice’ as it is an intimation of the decision already taken by the petitioner.

¶19

The facts, as appeared from the record, clearly indicate that there was no ‘show cause notice’ issued to the respondent before deducting the amount due and payable to him. Since, the service conditions of the respondent are adversely affected, the notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act was mandatory to have been given. The Industrial Court has rightly taken into consideration the said fact and has held that the act of recovery of the amount by the petitioner from the dues payable to the respondent is in contravention with the principles of natural justice.

¶20

In the facts of the case, no interference is called for in the order impugned. The petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶21

*sandesh

The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corp., Akola Division v. Ajabrao Vishram Tayade

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corp., Akola Division v. Ajabrao Vishram Tayade

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivaji Gramin Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Dewada (Khurd), Thr. Pre., Vilasrao a. Mogarkar and Ors. Vs Kalpana Madhukar Wadhai and Others

Praful Madhavrao Raut vs Pralhad Ramu Jadhav and Another

Dattatraya Fisheries Cooperative Society Ltd. Amravati Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Sec., Social Justice and Special Assit. Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Rambharose Laxman Yadav vs Satyanarayan S/O Nannu Yadao and Others

Suresh S/O Mahadeorao Hande vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector, Nagpur and Others

The Yavatmal Islamiya Anglo Urdu Education Society, Thr. Secretary, Mohamad Anwar Lodha and Anr. Vs Mohammad Ehsam Ur Rahim and Others